It is possible only—and you would know this as a former prosecutor—in a very rare and particular set of circumstances, because as the accused you have to establish, first of all, according to the Daviault test, that you were in a state of extreme intoxication. You have to do that with expert evidence, and only once you do that can the Crown disprove it, and if they disprove it, then your defence is done. Otherwise, you then move to the point we're on today, which is to go to the criminal negligence standard for how you entered into that state.
Therefore, only a very rare set of circumstances would put you there. The court has said, jurisprudence has said and we have said around this table that intoxication is not a defence for crimes like sexual assault. I can say this to you—again, as a former prosecutor—that it's a general intent defence, so it's not going to be a defence, and we need to make that clear.